X-Digest-Num: 119 Message-ID: <44114.119.667.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 17:59:24 +0100 From: Colin Fine Subject: Re: mutual project X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 667 Content-Length: 2917 Lines: 63 vecu'u le notci po'u <19990419144105.B582@dolphin.dolphin.openprojects.n et> la William Tanksley cu cusku di'e >BTW, I just noticed that the loglanists are hosted from my school, UCSD. >Do you guys meet on campus? > > >I don't find it too suprising, simply because the project approaches are >so dissimilar. The Loglanders (if I may) have a non-fixed language which >can be tinkered with and improved; the Lojbanistanis have a static >language which can be studied. We (as always) have quite a bit to learn >from the results of our studies, but very little to help the studies >themselves. >If there's any suprise to be found, it's that Lojban was started from >something as seemingly unsuited to it as Loglan (no insult intended, let >me explain). Lojban, as far as I can tell, was intended to be a free >language, like Linux is a free OS. It's odd that the founders used >Loglan, a non-free (copyrighted with trade secrets) language as a basis. > That's what history looks like from the rear. It didn't happen that way. >Oh well. I like both languages; I like the fundamental research that I >see on the Loglan page, and I like the exploration which I see in the >Lojban group. > > >> I can imagine such benefits - in cross-fertilisation, and indeed in >> coordinated difference. If Lojban goes one way and Loglan another in >> some respect, this might be interesting. It might be even more >> interesting were we to say "We'll try doing this in our version and you >> do that instead, and let's see what effects they have". > >One problem is that Lojban has (AFAIK) nothing whatsoever to gain from >such an experiment -- its definition is frozen, and will not admit change >for at least five years. Its definition may be frozen, but do you suppose that stops people tinkering with it? The point is that we know that any suggestions we make (that touch the matter which has been baselined) cannot become part of the language, at least until the next baseline. That doesn't stop us 'exploring' as you put it. > >The Loglanders would indeed do well (I suspect) to watch Lojban and >imitate the successes while shunning the mistakes -- but how can we tell >the differences? Artificial selection doesn't work when we don't have a >selection criterion. > There are probably not going to be many objective mistakes. But there can be subjective preferences, and sometimes things that usage shows work better or not so well. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Colin Fine 66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK | | Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354 e-mail: colin@kindness.demon.co.uk | | "Don't just do something! Stand there!" | | - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop) | -----------------------------------------------------------------------